Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 29
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, T. SUDHANTHIRAM, JJ.
Tamil Selvam & Another
Versus
State represented by the Inspector of Police, Thanjavur
Crl.A(MD)Nos.1456 of 2003 & 1603 of 2003
Decided On : 04-01-2011
For the Appellants:A1 & A2 - Kanagaraj for T. Sekar, A3 - D. Sivaraman, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Isack Manual, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for strong, reliable, and unblemished testimony from a single eye-witness to support a conviction, emphasizing the importance of natural presence at the scene of occurrence and the absence of inconsistencies or tutoring by the police.
Headnote:
Section 302 - Murder - Indian Penal Code - 302, 341, 506(ii), 109 - The court relied on the testimony of a single eye-witness, but found the witness untrustworthy and unreliable due to inconsistencies and lack of corroboration. The judgment of the trial Court was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of the charges.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for the offence of murder under Section 302 r/w. 34 I.P.C. and other related offences. The case rested on the testimony of a single eye-witness, the wife of the deceased, who claimed to have witnessed the attack on her husband outside their residence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the testimony of the sole eye-witness was untrustworthy and unreliable due to inconsistencies and lack of corroboration. The court also noted discrepancies in the preparation of the First Information Report and the failure to conduct a test identification parade, which affected the prosecution's case.
Issues: The main issue was the reliability of the sole eye-witness testimony and the adequacy of evidence to support the conviction of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for strong, reliable, and unblemished testimony from a single eye-witness to convict the accused. It highlighted the importance of natural presence at the scene of occurrence and the absence of inconsistencies or tutoring by the police.
Final Decision: The judgment of the trial Court was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of the charges. The bail bonds executed were canceled, and any fine amount paid was directed to be refunded to the appellants.
T. SUDHANTHIRAM, J.
1. The appellants 1 and 2 in Crl.A.No.1456 of 2003 and the appellant in Crl.A.No.1603 of 2003 are the accused 1 to 3 respectively in S.C.No.46 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur. The accused 1 and 2 stand convicted for the offence under Section 302 r/w. 34 I.P.C. and each one of the accused sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-and in default to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment and also convicted for the offence under Section 341 I.P.C. and each one of the accused sentenced to undergo one month simple imprisonment. The third accused stands convicted for the offence under Section 302 r/w. 109 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-and in default to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment and convicted for the offence under Section 341 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo one month simple imprisonment and also convicted for the offence under Section 506(ii) I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants had preferred the above said appeals.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
(a) P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased Sekar and P.W.2 is the wife of the deceased. About six months prior to this occurrence, one Chinnaya @ Selvam was murdered and a case was registered by Kottampatii Police, in which the deceased Sekar was shown as accused. In connection with that case, the deceased also surrendered before the Court and he was in judicial custody for some time and thereafter, he was released on bail. The accused were related to the deceased Selvam. P.Ws.1 and 2 and the deceased Sekar were residing in a rented house at Manogipatti, South Pookadai in Thanjavur. On 07.03.1993, at about 8.15 p.m., P.W.2 was standing at threshold of the house and was expecting the arrival of her husband. At that time, she heard a noise from the place near the house of a person who was working in a Bank and she ran to that place. P.W.2 saw the accused 1 and 2 each one holding an aruval and attacking her husband on several parts of body. P.W.2 shouted not to attack her husband. Then she was threatened. According to P.W.2, the occurrence was also witnessed by P.W.1, the brother of the deceased and also the Panchayat President. The accused had run away from the scene of occurrence. The accused 1 and 3 escaped from the place in a TVS vehicle.
(b) P.W.2 went along with P.W.1 to the Thanjavur South Police Station and gave a complaint against the accused at 11.00 p.m. Ex.P3 is the complaint given by P.W.1 to P.W.11, the Sub-Inspector of Police. P.W.11, the Sub-Inspector of Police, on receiving the complaint, registered a case in Crime No.80 of 1993 for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and prepared the First Information Report -Ex.P4. P.W.15, the Inspector of Police took up the investigation. While he was about to go to the scene of occurrence received an information from P.W.9 and thereafter, he arrested the second accused and recorded his confession statement at about 12.15 a.m. In pursuance of his confession, recovered an aruval at about 1.15 a.m. and also recovered the dress materials of the accused. On further information, he went near the Thanjavur Medical College Hospital and recovered Hyundai motorcycle, an aruval, a citizen watch and bloodstained earth. Thereafter, on further information, he went inside the hospital to Ward No.28 and saw the first accused, who was admitted for having sustained injury on his right leg. He recovered the cloths of the first accused. Thereafter, he went to the scene of occurrence and prepared a rough sketch and recovered a Hercules cycle from the scene of occurrence. He held inquest on the body of the deceased on 23.03.1993 at 5.30 a.m. to 11.30 a.m. and recorded the statement of the witnesses and prepared the inquest report -Ex.P.17. He sent the body for the postmortem examination with the req
